Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTi=XnTo05UyE48=BDhKorkF63_N2PA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote: > >> I doubt that anyone wants the current behaviour. > > Current behavior would be an exact fit for a few use cases we have. > Attempting to salvage some portion of the data on startup after a > crash would yield it unusable for the uses I have in mind. It would > have either all be there, or all gone. > > That's not to knock use cases others may have, just providing a data > point. Those words have been taken out of context, leading to what looks to me like a confusion. ..by "the current behaviour", I was specifically talking about the problem raised by Rob Wultsch upthread about RAM disks, not anything else. I have proposed a new and additional behaviour for 9.2 on hackers, though the two points are unrelated except for its me making them both. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: